On Wednesday, September 4, the Preeminent Court of India addressed Uttarakhand Chief Serve Pushkar Singh Dhami with respect to the arrangement of an Indian Timberland Benefit (Uncertainties) officer as the chief of Rajaji Tiger Reserve. The court noted that this decision was made despite objections from the state's forest minister and other officials.
During the hearing, Justice BR Gavai remarked, "Heads of governments cannot be expected to be old days' kings; we are not in a feudal era." The court emphasized that government actions should align with public trust rather than personal preferences.
The state government informed the court that the order appointing the IFS officer to the tiger reserve had been withdrawn on Tuesday, September 3. The seat, which included Judges PK Mishra and KV Viswanathan, was looking into the case including Uncertainties officer Rahul, a previous executive of the Corbett Tiger Save.
SC Questions Chief Minister's Authority
The court raised concerns over the chief minister's decision and asked, "Why should the chief minister have special affection for him (the officer)?" The bench pointed out that the chief minister had ignored objections from several officials, including the principal secretary and the forest minister.
The court further observed, "If you disagree with the opinions of the desk officer, deputy secretary, principal secretary, and the minister, then some application of mind is expected."
During the proceedings, senior advocate ANS Nadkarni, representing the state, explained that the IFS officer in question was facing a disciplinary proceeding related to the Corbett Tiger Reserve. However, Nadkarni argued that no FIR had been filed against the officer by the state police, CBI, or Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The bench questioned why departmental proceedings were initiated against the officer if there was no prima facie evidence against him. "Unless there is some prima facie material, departmental proceedings are not initiated against anyone," the court noted.
Objections from Uttarakhand's Forest Minister
The Supreme Court also referred to a newspaper report indicating that Uttarakhand's forest minister and chief secretary had opposed the officer's appointment. The bench confirmed that the report was accurate, stating "The newspaper report says the chief secretary and the forest minister both objected, and despite that, the chief minister overruled."
The court acknowledged that the state government had retracted the appointment order on September 3. In light of this development, the bench declared that no further orders were necessary and closed the proceedings.
With inputs from agencies
Image Source: Multiple agencies
© Copyright 2024. All Rights Reserved Powered by Vygr Media.
